re Table I: "% Chg" (percent change?) is not a good measure here.The analysis itself looks at the simple differences. Percent change,(or its alternate form, relative difference) is rarely appropriatewhen the two values involved can have different signs.

re Table II: The trick is to compare p(j)*(14-j) to alpha, insteadof comparing p(j) to alpha/(14-j). That way you can simply scan downand see what you would have to change your chosen alpha to in orderto declare the j'th test "significant". Thus, .005 * (14-3) = .055,which is twice your chosen alpha (.025) and so should probably not becalled significant.

Also: why .025 instead of .05? Are the p's one-tailed when you reallywant them to be two-tailed? Such things should be part of the report.